GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2010-08 > 1282930019


From: Douglas Richardson <>
Subject: Re: King John's grandson, Bishop Roger de Meulan, and the Bishop'sSeacourt connection
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
References: <34ed8c4c-63aa-4023-8152-87d5fd351c1f@l6g2000yqb.googlegroups.com><57db5baa-4ada-4719-a8ab-0192c53e399c@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>


Dear Hans ~

Thank you for your comment. Much appreciated.

Actually there are more serious problems here. First, Bowles &
Nichols, Annals & Antiquities of Lacock Abbey (1835): 164 report that
when Roger de Meulan (King John's grandson) was made a Bishop in 1257,
he knew very little of the English language. This implies that he was
a native of France, or that his native language was French. If so, it
seems unusual (but not impossible) that Bishop Roger would have a
sister married to an English knight who was active as an adult as
early as 1224–37, a full 20 years before Roger was made Bishop.

Second, it is stated that circa 1282 Bishop Roger de Meulan conveyed a
house in the parish of All Saints, Oxford to his "nephew," William de
Seacourt, a clerk. This comes from an actual charter. The charter is
doubtless in Latin. The Latin word used here for "nephew" was almost
certainly "nepos," which at this date could mean kinsman, nephew, or
grandson.

For an example of the broader meaning of the words, nepos/neptis, as
"kinsman"/"kinswoman" in English records as late as 1281, please see
Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 632–633 (sub Geneville), where it is shown
that Joan de la Marche (or de Lusignan), widow of Bernard-Ezy,
seigneur of Albret, was styled “neptem” [kinswoman] by King Edward I
of England in 1281. The original record is found in Gascon Roll, 8–10
Edw. I, m. 10. Joan de la Marche was not certainly King Edward I's
niece. Rather she was his first cousin once removed. She
subsequently married Sir Peter de Geneville, and is the ancestress of
the later baronial Mortimer family.

While it is a common assumption that a bishop's "nepos" in 1282 would
be his blood nephew, given the other factors cited above, it seems to
be a safer approach to render the word "nepos" as used in the bishop's
charter dated c.1282 as "kinsman" rather than "nephew." If so, this
would make William de Seacourt the "kinsman" not "nephew" of Bishop
Roger de Meulan.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Aug 27, 7:52 am, Volucris <> wrote:
> Is it sure that this sister of the bishop has the same parents als the
> bishop? She could have been a halfsister, thus no granddaughter King
> John. I see only a statement and no evidence in your communication.
>
> Hans Vogels
>
> On 22 aug, 19:05, Douglas Richardson <> wrote:
>
> > Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> > In the course of my research for the forthcoming 2nd edition of
> > Plantagenet Ancestry, I've turned up good evidence which indicates
> > that King John had a hitherto unknown grandson, Roger de Meulan,
> > Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield.  The connection between King John
> > and Bishop Roger de Meulan has been discussed in earlier posts here on
> > the newsgroup.
>
> > In more recent time, I've found additional evidence that Bishop Roger
> > de Meulan had an unknown sister, who was the wife of Sir William de
> > Seacourt, of Seacourt, Berkshire.  I've copied below what information
> > I've collected regarding this sister and her two children, William (a
> > priest) and Denise (possibly wife of ____ le Poer or Poure).
>
> > The evidence which links Bishop Roger de Meulan to the Seacourt family
> > is a charter dated c.1282, by which Bishop Roger granted his nephew,
> > William de Seacourt, clerk, a house in the parish of All Saints,
> > Oxford.  This charter is mentioned in the sources cited below.
>
> > The Seacourt family soon afterwards disappears from the records. The
> > Poure family is later found to be dealing with the Seacourt family
> > properties.  My guess is that the Poure family descends from the
> > Bishop's niece, Denise de Seacourt.  However, as far as I can tell,
> > the records do not appear to make the specific connection between the
> > Poure and Seacourt families.
>
> > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> > + + + + + + + + + +
>
> > 1.      _____ DE MEULAN (female), married WILLIAM DE SEACOURT (or
> > SECKWORTH, SEUKEWORTH), Knt., of Seacourt, Berkshire, son and heir of
> > Robert de Seacourt (or Seckworth) (living 1208), of Seacourt,
> > Berkshire.  They had one son, William (clerk) (living 1297), and one
> > daughter, Denise (living 1262) (possibly wife of _____ le Poer [or
> > Poure]).  Sometime in the period, 1224–37, he gave the tithe of a
> > meadow in Seacourt, Berkshire held by Godstow Abbey to the church of
> > Seacourt, Berkshire.  Sometime in the period, 1235–53, he gave the
> > nuns of Studley, Oxfordshire pasture for four oxen and one virgate of
> > land.  SIR WILLIAM DE SEACOURT died before 1262.
>
> > References:
>
> > Dunkin, Hist. & Antiqs. of the Hundreds of Bullington & Ploughley 1
> > (1823): 134, 141, 143.  Wood, Survey of the Antiqs. of the City of
> > Oxford 1 (Oxford Hist. Soc. 15) (1889): 79–80.  Clark, English Reg. of
> > Godstow Nunnery 1 (1905): 42–44.  VCH Berkshire 4 (1924): 422.
> > Spiers, Round about ‘the Mitre’ at Oxford (1929): 9–10, 18.

1


This thread: